> Noord-Holland wants to be the first Dutch province to ban advertisements for meat, fish and fossil products and companies from its bus shelters with immediate effect. Eight municipalities have expressed similar intentions, but the effect is likely to be limited.
>
> According to Statenlid Anouk Gielen (GroenLinks), co-sponsor of the motion regulating the ban, the decision is only logical. ‘As a province, we are working hard on solutions to the climate crisis, but in our bus shelters we give a stage to companies that work against that. As a sustainable province, we no longer want advertisements for far-flung air travel or Shell’s petrol.’
>
> The province has the right to refuse advertising, the contract with the advertising operator states. A spokesperson for the province confirms that the ban will therefore take effect immediately. ‘We have already submitted a request for this. About what we will do with ongoing and already purchased advertisements that do not fit within the new rules, we are still discussing.’
>
> **Polluting products**
>
> The ban will apply to the more than 500 bus shelter shelters managed by the province. These are all located outside built-up areas. But even within built-up areas, where bus shelters are the municipality’s domain, advertisements for polluting products are far from always safe: Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Nijmegen, Haarlem, Enschede, Amersfoort and Leiden have resolved to ban advertisements for fossil products. Haarlem and Nijmegen also want to see no more advertisements for meat from the bio-industry.
>
> However, many places have yet to implement such a ban. ‘Often municipalities have long-term contracts with operators that make that difficult,’ explains Rosanne Rootert of action group Advertising Fossil Free. ‘You could enshrine it in local regulations, but no municipality has tried that so far.’
>
> The municipality of Amsterdam has found an interim solution by making agreements with the operator of bus shelters in metro stations, but elsewhere in the city fossil ads are still just allowed. ‘Moreover, in the subways, Amsterdam only bars certain advertisements, such as those for petrol cars and discounted flights,’ says Rootert.
>
> **Greenwashing**
>
> The ban in North Holland focuses on ‘products with fossil fuels as an energy source’ and ‘meat and fish products’. Gielen: ‘We see that far from all companies can already operate in a climate-neutral way, but we are concerned with the companies that pump fossil fuels on a large scale.’
>
> Rootert also argues for a ban on greenwashing, the use of advertising to make a company appear greener than it is in order to influence public opinion. Research shows, for example, that large fossil energy companies mainly communicate about their green efforts, even though these are only a small part of their operations. But co-sponsor Alphons Muurlink (PvdA) points out that there are already laws prohibiting this.
>
> Professor of marketing Peeter Verlegh (Free University) also questions whether a ban is the solution to greenwashing. He sees more benefit in specific measures, such as going to the Advertising Code Committee or the courts. ‘You can zoom in on 2 per cent less plastic in the lid in your advertising, but if it is still a polluting product for the rest, you cannot sell it as sustainable. Such misleading claims you can tackle individually.’
>
> **Symbol measure**
>
> A second goal of the ban is less consumption of polluting goods, such as airline holidays and hamburgers. ‘Just like with cigarettes,’ says Gielen. ‘You can still buy those, but we don’t encourage it.’ Making a distinction between more and less sustainably produced meat, as the municipality of Haarlem wants to do, she does not see the point. ‘For the climate goals, it is important that we eat less animal proteins, wherever they come from.’
>
> Professor Verlegh suspects that such an approach could be successful, provided it is applied on a large scale. ‘Generally speaking, advertising works, so if you ban it, it will affect sales. For example, there is broad consensus that combined measures against smoking have been effective,’ he says. This includes not only advertising bans, but also reduced visibility of cigarettes in supermarkets and smoking bans in restaurants. ‘You could do something similar with meat or flies.’
>
> The campaign against smoking does last for decades, and what the unique contribution of the advertising ban has been cannot be determined. So isn’t it mostly a symbolic measure? ‘The question is whether a symbolic measure is bad,’ argues Verlegh. ‘You send an important signal with it: this is an undesirable product and we don’t want to be associated with it.’
10 comments
> Noord-Holland wants to be the first Dutch province to ban advertisements for meat, fish and fossil products and companies from its bus shelters with immediate effect. Eight municipalities have expressed similar intentions, but the effect is likely to be limited.
>
> According to Statenlid Anouk Gielen (GroenLinks), co-sponsor of the motion regulating the ban, the decision is only logical. ‘As a province, we are working hard on solutions to the climate crisis, but in our bus shelters we give a stage to companies that work against that. As a sustainable province, we no longer want advertisements for far-flung air travel or Shell’s petrol.’
>
> The province has the right to refuse advertising, the contract with the advertising operator states. A spokesperson for the province confirms that the ban will therefore take effect immediately. ‘We have already submitted a request for this. About what we will do with ongoing and already purchased advertisements that do not fit within the new rules, we are still discussing.’
>
> **Polluting products**
>
> The ban will apply to the more than 500 bus shelter shelters managed by the province. These are all located outside built-up areas. But even within built-up areas, where bus shelters are the municipality’s domain, advertisements for polluting products are far from always safe: Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Nijmegen, Haarlem, Enschede, Amersfoort and Leiden have resolved to ban advertisements for fossil products. Haarlem and Nijmegen also want to see no more advertisements for meat from the bio-industry.
>
> However, many places have yet to implement such a ban. ‘Often municipalities have long-term contracts with operators that make that difficult,’ explains Rosanne Rootert of action group Advertising Fossil Free. ‘You could enshrine it in local regulations, but no municipality has tried that so far.’
>
> The municipality of Amsterdam has found an interim solution by making agreements with the operator of bus shelters in metro stations, but elsewhere in the city fossil ads are still just allowed. ‘Moreover, in the subways, Amsterdam only bars certain advertisements, such as those for petrol cars and discounted flights,’ says Rootert.
>
> **Greenwashing**
>
> The ban in North Holland focuses on ‘products with fossil fuels as an energy source’ and ‘meat and fish products’. Gielen: ‘We see that far from all companies can already operate in a climate-neutral way, but we are concerned with the companies that pump fossil fuels on a large scale.’
>
> Rootert also argues for a ban on greenwashing, the use of advertising to make a company appear greener than it is in order to influence public opinion. Research shows, for example, that large fossil energy companies mainly communicate about their green efforts, even though these are only a small part of their operations. But co-sponsor Alphons Muurlink (PvdA) points out that there are already laws prohibiting this.
>
> Professor of marketing Peeter Verlegh (Free University) also questions whether a ban is the solution to greenwashing. He sees more benefit in specific measures, such as going to the Advertising Code Committee or the courts. ‘You can zoom in on 2 per cent less plastic in the lid in your advertising, but if it is still a polluting product for the rest, you cannot sell it as sustainable. Such misleading claims you can tackle individually.’
>
> **Symbol measure**
>
> A second goal of the ban is less consumption of polluting goods, such as airline holidays and hamburgers. ‘Just like with cigarettes,’ says Gielen. ‘You can still buy those, but we don’t encourage it.’ Making a distinction between more and less sustainably produced meat, as the municipality of Haarlem wants to do, she does not see the point. ‘For the climate goals, it is important that we eat less animal proteins, wherever they come from.’
>
> Professor Verlegh suspects that such an approach could be successful, provided it is applied on a large scale. ‘Generally speaking, advertising works, so if you ban it, it will affect sales. For example, there is broad consensus that combined measures against smoking have been effective,’ he says. This includes not only advertising bans, but also reduced visibility of cigarettes in supermarkets and smoking bans in restaurants. ‘You could do something similar with meat or flies.’
>
> The campaign against smoking does last for decades, and what the unique contribution of the advertising ban has been cannot be determined. So isn’t it mostly a symbolic measure? ‘The question is whether a symbolic measure is bad,’ argues Verlegh. ‘You send an important signal with it: this is an undesirable product and we don’t want to be associated with it.’
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Clown world show
Meanwhile gambling advertisements are still allowed. Interesting priorities they have.
But why?
I hate i have to mention this but Holland is not the netherlands. north holland is 1 province out of the 12 in the country
Such a ridiculous decision
Great start! Hopefully more places follow.
But lets (till) allow ads for gambling and alcohol!
Guys, chill, it only applies to this one province’s bus shelters.
Damn, cult is getting influential.